skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 10:00 PM ET on Thursday, February 12 until 1:00 AM ET on Friday, February 13 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: Teaching children to be problem posers and puzzle-creators in mathematics
Seymour Papert’s 1972 paper “Teaching Children to be Mathematicians Versus Teaching About Mathematics” started with the summary statement “The important difference between the work of a child in an elementary mathematics class and that of a mathematician is not in the subject matter…but in the fact that the mathematician is creatively engaged….” Along with “creative,” a key term Papert kept using is project rather than the common notion of problem. A project is not simply a very large problem. It centrally includes a focus on sustained and active engagement. The projects in his illustrations were essentially research projects, not just multi-step, fullyprescribed, build-a-thing tasks, no matter how nice the end product might be. A mathematical playground with enough attractive destinations in it draws children naturally to pose their own tasks and projects—as they universally do in their other personal and group playgrounds—and to learn to act and think like mathematicians. They even acquire conventionally taught content through that play. Physical construction was always available, and appealed to such thinkers as Dewey, but for Papert computer programming, newly available to school, suggested a more flexible medium and a model for an ideal playground. A fact about playgrounds is that children choose challenge. In working and playing with children I’ve seen that puzzles tap some of the same personally chosen challenge that a programming centric playground offers. Children are naturally drawn to intellectual challenges of riddles (ones they learn and ones they invent) and puzzles; and adults are so lured by puzzles that even supermarkets sell books of them. So what’s the difference between real puzzles and school problems? What’s useful about creating a puzzle or posing a problem? How might puzzles and problem posing support mathematical learning? And what’s constructionist about this? This plenary will try to respond to these questions, invite some of your own responses, let you solve and create some puzzles, and explore how problem posing in programming and puzzling can support mathematics even in an age of rigid content constraints.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1741792 1441075
PAR ID:
10100815
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of Constructionism 2018
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. > Context • In 1972, Papert emphasized that “[t]he important difference between the work of a child in an elementary mathematics class and […]a mathematician” is “not in the subject matter […]but in the fact that the mathematician is creatively engaged […]” Along with creative, Papert kept saying children should be engaged in projects rather than problems. A project is not just a large problem, but involves sustained, active engagement, like children’s play. For Papert, in 1972, computer programming suggested a flexible construction medium, ideal for a research-lab/playground tuned to mathematics for children. In 1964, without computers, Sawyer also articulated research-playgrounds for children, rooted in conventional content, in which children would learn to act and think like mathematicians. > Problem • This target article addresses the issue of designing a formal curriculum that helps children develop the mathematical habits of mind of creative tinkering, puzzling through, and perseverance. I connect the two mathematicians/educators – Papert and Sawyer – tackling three questions: How do genuine puzzles differ from school problems? What is useful about children creating puzzles? How might puzzles, problem-posing and programming-centric playgrounds enhance mathematical learning? > Method • This analysis is based on forty years of curriculum analysis, comparison and construction, and on research with children. > Results • In physical playgrounds most children choose challenge. Papert’s ideas tapped that try-something-new and puzzle-it-out-for-yourself spirit, the drive for challenge. Children can learn a lot in such an environment, but what (and how much) they learn is left to chance. Formal educational systems set standards and structures to ensure some common learning and some equity across students. For a curriculum to tap curiosity and the drive for challenge, it needs both the playful looseness that invites exploration and the structure that organizes content. > Implications • My aim is to provide support for mathematics teachers and curriculum designers to design or teach in accord with their constructivist thinking. > Constructivist content • This article enriches Papert’s constructionism with curricular ideas from Sawyer and from the work that I and my colleagues have done 
    more » « less
  2. The Reading and Appreciating Mathematical Proofs (RAMP) project seeks to provide novel resources for teaching undergraduate introduction to proof courses centered around reading activities. These reading activities include (1) reading rich proofs to learn new mathematics through proofs as well as to learn how to read proofs for understanding and (2) reading mathematician stories to humanize proving and to legitimize challenge and struggle. One of the guiding analogies of the project is thinking about learning proof-based mathematics like learning a genre of literature. We want students to read interesting proofs so they can appreciate what is exciting about the genre and how they can engage with it. Proofs were selected by eight professors in mathematics who as curriculum co-authors collected intriguing mathematical results and added stories of their experience becoming mathematicians. As mathematicians of colour and/or women mathematicians, these co-authors speak to the challenges they faced in their mathematical history, how they overcame these challenges, and the key role mentors and community have played in that process. These novel opportunities to learn to read and read to learn in the proof-based context hold promise for supporting student learning in new ways. In this commentary, we share how we have sought to humanize proof-based mathematics both in the reading materials and in our classroom implementation thereof. 
    more » « less
  3. Abstract This article reports on an exploration of how second-graders can learn mathematics through programming. We started from the theory that a suitably designed programming language can serve children as a language for expressing and experimenting with mathematical ideas and processes in order to do mathematics and thereby, with appropriate tasks and teaching, learn and enjoy the subject. This is very different from using the computer as a teaching app or a digital medium for exploration. Children tackled genuine puzzles – problems for which they did not already have a pre-learned solution. So far, we have built four microworlds for second-graders and tested them with a diverse population of well over three hundred children. The microworlds focus on the most critical second-grade mathematical content (as mandated in state standards), let children pick up all key programming ideas in contexts that make them ‘obvious’ (to maintain focus on the mathematics) and suppress all other distractions to minimize overhead for teachers or students using the microworlds. Because children see the results of the actions they articulate (in the computer language, Snap ! ), they can evaluate their methods and solutions themselves. The feedback is purely the outcome, not happy or sad sounds from the computer. Notably, nearly all children showed intense engagement, some choosing microworlds even outside of mathematics time. Teachers spontaneously reported this as well, with special mention of children whom they found hard to engage in regular lessons. We report our experiments and observations in the spirit of sharing the ideas and promoting more research. 
    more » « less
  4. Informal mathematics learning has been far less studied than informal science learning – but youth can experience and learn about mathematics in their homes and communities. “Math walks” where students learn about how mathematics appears in the world around them, and have the opportunity to create their own math walk stops in their communities, can be a particularly powerful approach to informal mathematics learning. This study implemented an explanatory sequential mixed-method research design to investigate the impact of problem-posing activities in the math walks program on high school students' mathematical outcomes. The program was implemented during the pandemic and was modified to an online program where students met with instructors via online meetings. The researchers analyzed students' problem-posing work, surveyed students' interest in mathematics before and after the program, and compared the complexity of self-generated problems in pre- and post-assessments and different learning activities in the program. The results of the study suggest that students posed more complex problems in free problem-posing activities than in semi-structured problem-posing. Students also posed more complex problems in the post-survey than in the pre-survey. Students' mathematical dispositions did not significantly change from the pre-survey to post-survey, but the qualitative analysis showed that they began thinking more deeply, asking questions, and connecting school content to real-world scenarios. This study provides evidence that the math walks program is an effective approach to informal mathematics learning. The program was successful in helping students develop problem-posing skills and connect mathematical concepts to the world around them. Overall, “math walks” provide a powerful opportunity for informal mathematics learning. 
    more » « less
  5. The purpose of this study was to explore how kindergarten students (aged 5–6 years) engaged with mathematics as they learned programming with robot coding toys. We video-recorded 16 teaching sessions of kindergarten students’ (N = 36) mathematical and programming activities. Students worked in small groups (4–5 students) with robot coding toys on the floor in their classrooms, solving tasks that involved programming these toys to move to various locations on a grid. Drawing on a semiotic mediation perspective, we analyzed video data to identify the mathematics concepts and skills students demonstrated and the overlapping mathematics-programming knowledge exhibited by the students during these programming tasks. We found that kindergarten children used spatial, measurement, and number knowledge, and the design of the tasks, affordances of the robots, and types of programming knowledge influenced how the students engaged with mathematics. The paper concludes with a discussion about the intersections of mathematics and programming knowledge in early childhood, and how programming robot toys elicited opportunities for students to engage with mathematics in dynamic and interconnected ways, thus creating an entry point to reassert mathematics beyond the traditional school content and curriculum. 
    more » « less